United States v. Martinez

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.ANGEL MARTINEZ a/k/a Ace Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON United States Magistrate Judge

The
defendant Angel Martinez (“the Defendant”) is
charged in a single count indictment with distribution and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841. The government has moved for pre-trial
detention of the Defendant. On April 12 and 17, 2017, the
court held an evidentiary hearing on the government's
motion. The government alleged, and the grand jury found
probable cause to believe, that the defendant knowingly and
intentionally distributed cocaine to a confidential informant
on or about May 19, 2015. The government has invoked the
presumption of detention set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3141(e)(3)(A), which applies when a defendant is charged with
an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten
years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act.

The
factors to be considered in determining whether to release or
detain a defendant pending trial are set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g), and include the nature and circumstance of
the offense charged; the weight of the evidence as to guilt;
the history and characteristics of the accused, including
family ties, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse,
criminal history, record concerning appearances at court
proceedings, financial resources and employment; and the
nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by a release. See 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g).

As to
the nature and circumstances of the crime charged, defendant
is charged with a single count of distribution of cocaine. He
does not have a prior history of convictions for drug
distribution. The government's case is based on a single
alleged transaction with a confidential source, which was
recorded. The evidence that the Defendant committed this
offense is, therefore, strong. Under the sentencing
guidelines, he is facing a likely sentence of between two to
three years.

In
terms of Defendant's personal characteristics, he
receives social security disability benefits and apparently
does not have a history of employment. He had been living in
Tampa, Florida for around 18 months when he was arrested, and
he proposes to live in Tampa if he is released pending trial.
He has a place to live there and the potential of part time
employment that would not disqualify him from receiving
social security disability benefits. He tested positive for
the use of cocaine and marijuana following his arrest but
there is no evidence that he has been involved in the
distribution of narcotics in Tampa. His family ties are in
Springfield, Massachusetts, not in Florida. He maintains
contact with his father in Springfield, but cannot stay with
him other than as a temporary guest because the father lives
in Section 8 housing.

The
government argues that the Defendant poses a risk of
non-appearance based on his history of default warrants and
the distance from Tampa to Springfield. The court finds that
the Defendant has rebutted the presumption of a risk of
non-appearance, and that the government has failed to carry
its burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence
that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably
assure the Defendant's appearance in court as required.
The default warrants are mainly from the Springfield District
Court. Many of them are remote in time, and there was no
evidence to put the warrants in context. The government did
not present evidence showing that the Defendant was aware of
and seeking to evade arrest on this indictment, which was
sealed until his arrest, when he moved to Tampa. There is
currently a warrant against him that was issued by the
Springfield District Court in or around the time he left
Springfield for Tampa (July 2015) but there was no conclusive
evidence that he was aware of that warrant, and was fleeing
prosecution when he went to Florida. The Defendant's
evidence showed that he notified the Social Security
Administration of his address in Tampa, and, notwithstanding
some confusion on the part of the Pretrial and Probation
Office in Tampa, that he provided accurate information about
his living arrangement in Tampa when he was arrested. Under
the guidelines calculation, he faces a relatively short
sentence in this case that would not give him an incentive to
flee and, so far as appears from the evidence, he lacks
financial resources to do so. The court finds that the
conditions set forth in the attached order will reasonably
assure the Defendant's future appearances in this court
on this indictment.

The
government presses with most force its contention that there
are no conditions of supervised release that will assure the
safety of the community and the woman with whom the Defendant
has a close personal relationship if he is released pending
trial. The government's evidence established that the
Defendant has convictions for serious offenses involving
violence against other persons, that eight (8) women obtained
restraining order against him between April 1998 and October
2014, and that a woman who had not taken out a restraining
order, but with whom he had had an intimate relationship,
called the police and accused him of assaulting her in July
2015. Thus, the government's evidence established a
history of assaultive conduct by the Defendant, much of it
against women, that extended through July 2015.

The
Defendant's rebuttal evidence established that in Tampa,
the Defendant has had a close relationship with Lisette
Gonzalez for approximately eighteen (18) months and lived
with her and her teenage son for approximately a year. Ms.
Gonzalez, who testified at the detention hearing by
videoconference and was a credible witness, stated that there
has been no violence in her relationship with the Defendant
and that he tries to be a positive influence for her teenaged
son. She is prepared to have him live in her apartment, to
serve as his custodian, and to sign an unsecured bond on his
behalf. She understands that his location would be subject to
electronic location monitoring and that equipment would need
to be installed for this purpose. According to the Probation
and Pretrial Services report, Ms. Gonzalez has no criminal
record. Ms. Gonzalez testified that the Defendant does not
have a wide circle of acquaintances in Tampa, and that he
spends his time primarily in her company and with members of
her immediate family. The Defendant's past criminal
conduct and associations and his violent relationships with
women have been in Springfield. So far as appears from the
evidence, the Defendant has not had any contact with law
enforcement for any potential criminal offenses during the
last eighteen months while he has lived in Tampa.

Notwithstanding
the presumption, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3),
the court concludes that the evidence tendered by the
Defendant is sufficient to rebut the presumption and that the
government has not shown by clear and convincing evidence
that that no condition or combination of conditions of
release will reasonably ensure the safety of any other person
or the community if he is released to reside in Tampa on
stringent conditions pending trial.

A form
of conditions of release for the Defendant is attached hereto
as exhibit 1. The United States Marshal is ordered to keep
the Defendant in custody until an unsecured bond is ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.